$^ittsjv to tMSu 









""~ 




|^1800JS| 


Glass 


E. S^ia 


Book 







A LETTER 

TO MR. HARRISON GRAY OTIS, 

A MEMBER OF THE SENATE OF MASSACHUSETTS, 

ON THE PRESENT STATE 

OF 

Our National Affairs; 

WITH 

REMARKS 

UPON 

MR. T. PICKERING'S LETTER 

Tp THE GOVERNOR OF THE COMMONWEALTH, 

BY JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. 



PUBLISHED BY WILLIAM DUANE, NO. 106 HIGH STR&&T; 
PHILADELPHIA. 

UQSo 



PS9-9, 



LETTER. 



Washington, March 31, 1808 

Oear Sir, 

I HAVE received from one of my friends in Boston, a copy 
of a printed pamphlet, containing a letter from Mr. Pickering to. 
the governor of the commonwealth, intended for communication 
to the legislature of the state, during the session recently con- 
cluded. But this object not having been accomplished, it appears 
to have been published by some friend of the writer, whose in- 
ducement is stated, no doubt truly, to have been the importance 
of the matter discussed in it, and the high respectability of the 
author. 

The subjects of this letter are the embargo, and the differen- 
ces in controversy between our country and Great Britain — sub- 
jects upon which it is my misfortune, in the discharge of my du- 
ties as a senator of the United States, to differ from the opinion 
of my colleague. The place where the question upon the first of 
them, in common with others of great national concern, was be- 
tween him and me, in our official capacities, a proper object of 
discussion, was the senate of the union. There it was discussed, 
and, as far as the constitutional authority of that body extended, 
there it was decided. Having obtained alike the concurrence of 
the other branch of the national legislature, and the approbation 
of the president, it became the law of the land, and as such I 
have considered it entitled to the respect and the obedience of 
every virtuous citizen. . 

From these decisions, however, the letter in question is to be 
considered in the nature of an appeal ; in the first instance, to our 
common constituents, the legislature of the state; and in the se- 
cond, by the publication, to the people. To both these tribunals I 
shall always hold myself accountable for every act of my public 
life. Yet, were my own political character alone implicated in 
the course which has in this instance been pursued, I should 
have forborne all notice of the proceeding, and have left my con- 
duct in this, as in other cases, to the candor and discretion of my 
country. 



(4) 

But to this species of appeal, thus conducted, there are some 
objections on constitutional grounds, which I deem it my duty to 
mention for the consideration of the public. On a statement of 
circumstances attending a very important act of national legisla- 
tion, a statement which the writer undoubtedly believed to be 
true, but which comes only from one side of the question, and 
which I expect to prove, in the most essential points, erroneous, 
the writer, with the most animated tone of energy, calls for the 
interposition of the commercial states, and asserts that " nothing 
but their sense, clearly and emphatically expressed, will save 
them from ruin." This solemn and alarming invocation is ad- 
dressed to the legislature of Massachusetts, at so late a period 
of their session, that had it been received by them, they must 
have been compelled either to act upon the views of this repre- 
sentation, without hearing the counter statement of the other 
side, or seemingly to disregard the pressing interest of their con- 
stituents, by neglecting an admonition of the most serious com- 
plexion. Considering the application as precedent, its tendency 
is dangerous to the public. For on the first supposition, that the 
legislature had been precipitated to act on the spur of such an 
instigation, they must have acted on imperfect information, and 
under an excitement, not remarkably adapted to the composure 
of safe deliberation. On the second, they would have been ex- 
posed to unjust imputations, which at the eve of an election 
mig*ht have operated in the most unequitable manner upon the 
characters of individual members. 

The interposition of one or more state legislatures, to control 
the exercise of the powers vested by the general constitution in 
the congress of the United States, is at least of questionable po- 
licy. The views of a state legislature are naturally and properlf 
limited in a considerable degree to the peculiar interests of the 
state. The very object and formation of the national deliberative 
assemblies was for the compromise and conciliation of the inte- 
rests of all — of the whole nation. If the appeal from the regular, 
legitimate measures of the body where the whole nation is re- 
presented, be proper to one state legislature, it must be so to ano- 
ther. If the commercial states are called to interpose on one 
hand, will not the agricultural states be with equal propriety sum- 
moned to interpose on the other ? If the east is stimulated against 
the west, and the northern and southern sections are urged into 
collision with each other, by appeals from the acts of congress 
to the representative states— in what are these appeals to end? 

It is undoubtedly the right, and may often become the duty of 
a state legislature to address that of the nation, with the expres- 
sion of its wishes, in regard to interests peculiarly concerning 
the state itself. Nor shall I question the right of every member 
of the great federative compact to declare its own sense of mea- 
sures interesting to the nation at large. But whenever the case 



CO 

occurs, that this sense should be H clearly and emphatically" exi 
pressed, it ought surely to be predicated upon a lull and impar- 
tial consideration of the whole subject — not under the stimulus 
of a one-sided representation — far less upon the impulse of con- 
jectures and suspicions. It is not through the medium of per- 
sonal sensibility, nor of party bias, nor of professional occupation, 
nor of geogr. ■■phical position, that the whole truth can be discern- 
ed, of questions involving the rights and interests of this exten- 
sive union. When the discussion is urged upon a state legisla- 
ture, the first caii upon its members should be to cast ah their 
feelings and interests as the citizens of a single state into the 
common stock of the national concern. 

Should the occurrence upon which an appeal is made from 
the councils of the nation, to those of a single state ae one upon 
which the representation of the state had been divided, and the 
member who found himself in the minority, felt himself impell- 
ed by a sense of duty, to invoke the interposition of his constitu- 
ents, it would seem that both in justice to them, and in candour 
to his colleague, some notice of such intention should be given 
to him, that he too might be prepared to exhibit his views of the 
subject upon which the differences of opinion had taken place ; 
or at least that the resort should be had, at such a period of time 
as would leave it within the reach of possibility for his represen- 
tations to be received, by their common constituents, before they 
would be compelled to decide on the merits of the case. 

The fairness and propriety of. this course of proceeding must 
be so obvious that it is difficult to conceive of the propriety of 
any other. Yet it presents another inconvenience which must 
necessarily result from this practice of appellate legislation. 
When one of the senators from a state proclaims to his consti- 
tuents that a particular measure, or system of measures which 
has received the vote and support of his colleague, are pernicious 
and destructive to those interests which both are bound by the 
most sacred of ties, with zeal and fidelity to promote, the de- 
nunciation of the measures amounts to little less than a denunci- 
ation of the man. The advocate of a policy thus reprobated 
must feel himself summoned by every motive of sell defence 
to vindicate his conduct: and if his general sense of his official 
duties would bind him to the industrious devotion of his whole 
time to the public business of the session, the hours which he 
might be forced to employ for his own justification, would of 
course be deducted from the discharge of his more regular and 
appropriate functions. Should these occasions frequently recur, 
they could not fail to interfere with the due performance of the 
public business. Korean 1 forbear to remark the tendency of 
such antagonizing appeals to distract the councils of the state in 
its own legislature, to destroy its influence, and expose it to de- 
rision, in the presence of its sister states, and to produce between 



(6 



the colleagues themselves mutual asperities and rancors, until 
the great concerns of the nation would degenerate into the puny- 
controversies of personal altercation. 

It is therefore with extreme reluctance that I enter upon this 
discussion. In developing my own views, and the principles 
which have governed my conduct in relation to our foreign af- 
fairs, and particularly to the embargo, some very material differ- 
ences in point of fact as well as of opinion, will be found between 
my statements, and those of the letter, which alone can apologize 
for this. They will not, I trust, be deemed in any degree disre- 
spectful to the writer. Far more pleasing would it have been to 
me, conkl that honest and anxious pursuit of the policy best cal- 
culated to nromote the honor and welfare of our country, which, 
I trust, is felt with equal ardor by us both, have resulted in the 
same opinions, and have given them the vigor of united exertion. 
There is a candour and liberality of conduct and of sentiment 
due from associates in the same public charge, towards each 
other, necessary to their individual reputation, to their common 
influence, and to their public usefulness. In our republican go- 
vernment, where the power of the nation consists alone in the 
sympathies of opinion, this reciprocal deference, this open hearted 
imputation of honest intentions, is the only adamant at once at- 
tractive and impenetrable, that can bear, unshattered, all the 
thunder of foreign hostility. Ever since I have had the honor 
of a seat in the national councils, J have extended it to every de- 
partment of the government. However differing in my conclu- 
sions, upon questions of the highest moment, from any other 
man, of whatever party, I have never, upon suspicion, imputed 
his conduct to corruption. If this confidence argues ignorance 
of public men and public affairs, to that ignorance I must plead 
guilty. I know, indeed, enough of human nature, to be sensible 
that vigilant observation is at all times, and that suspicion may 
occasionally become necessary, upon the conduct of men in power. 
But I know as well that confidence is the only cement of an 
elective government. Election is the very test of confidence — 
and its periodical return is the constitutional check upon its 
abuse; of which the electors must of course be the sole judges. 
For the exercise of power, where man is free, confidence is in- 
di - usable — and when it once totally fails— when the men to 
whom the people have committed the application of their force, 
for their benefit, are to be presumed the vilest of mankind, the 
very foundation of the social compact must be dissolved. To- 
wards the gentleman whose official station results from the con- 
.idence of the same legislature, by whose appointment I have 
the honor of holding a-similar trust, I have thought this confi- 
dence peculiarly due from me, nor should I now notice his let- 
ter, notwithstanding the disapprobation it so obviously implies, at 
which Ihave pursued in relation to the subjects of 



/ to \ 

V < ) 

which it treats, did it not appear to me calculated to produce 
upon the public mind, impressions unfavorable to the rights and 
interests of the nation. 

Having understood that a motion in the senate of Massachu 
setts was made by you, requesting the governor to transmit Mr. 
Pickering's letter to the legislature, together with such commu- 
nications, relating to public affairs, as he might have received 
from me, I avail myself of that circumstance, and of the friend- 
ship which has so long subsisted between us, to take the liberty 
of addressing this letter, intended for publication, to you.— Very 
few of the facts which. I shall state will rest upon information pe- 
culiar to myself.-— Most of them will stand upon the basis of 
official documents, or of public and undisputed notoriety. For my 
opinions, though fully persuaded, that even where differing from 
your own, they will meet with a fair and liberal judge in you, 
yet of the public I ask neither favor nor indulgence. Pretending 
to no extraordinary credit from the authority of the writer, I am 
sensible they must fall by their own weakness, or stand by their 
own strength. 

The first remark which obtrudes itself upon the mind, on the 
perusal of Mr. Pickering's letter is, that in enumerating all the 
pretences (for he thinks there are no causes) for the embargo, and 
for a war with Great Britain, he has totally omitted the British 
orders of council of November 11, 1807— those orders, under 
which millions o'i the property of our fellow citizens, are now de- 
tained in British hands, or confiscated to British captors — those 
orders, under which ten-fold as many millions of the same pro- 
perty would have been at this moment in the same predicament, 
had they not been saved from ex/wsure to it by the embargo — those 
orders, which if once submitted to and carried to the extent of 
their principles, would not have left an inch of American canvas 
upon the ocean, but under British taxation. An attentive reader 
of the letter, without other information, would not even suspect 
their existence.— They are indeed in one or two passages, faint- 
ly and darkly alluded to under the justifying description of "the. 
orders of the British government, retaliating the French imperial 
decree:" but as causes for the embargo, or as possible causes or 
even fii etences of war with Great Britain, they are not only un- 
noticed, but their very existence is by direct implication denied. 
It is indeed true, that these orders were not officially commu- 
nicated with the president's message recommending the embar- 
go They had not been officially received — but they were an- 
nounced, in several paragraphs from London and Liverpool news- 
papers of the 10th, 11th, and 12th of November, which appeared 
in the National Intelligencer of 13th December, the day upon 
which the embargo message was sent to congress. The British 
government had taken care that they should not be authentically 
Known before their time : for the very same newspapers which 



gave \his inofficial notice of these orders, announced also the de- 
parture of Mr. Rose, upon a special mission to the United States. 
And we now know, that of these all-devouring instruments qfrq- 
pine, Mr. Rose was not even informed his mission was profess- 
edly a mission of conciliation and reparation for a flagrant, enor- 
mous, acknowledged outrage. But he was not sent with these or- 
ders of council in his hands. His text was the disavowal of ad- 
miral Berkley's conduct — the commentary was to be discovered 
on another page of the British ministerial policy — on the face of 
Mr. Rose's instructions, these orders of council were as invinci- 
ble as they are on that of Mr. Pickering's letter. 

They were not merely without official authenticity. Rumors 
had for several weeks been in circulation, derived from ". nglish 
prints, and from private correspondences, that such orders were to 
issue ; aud no inconsiderable pains were taken here to discredit the 
fact. Assurances were given that there was reason to believe no 
such orders to be contemplated Suspicion was lulled by declara- 
tions equivalent nearly to a positive denial ; and these opiates 
were continued for weeks after the embargo was laid, until Mr. 
Erskine received instructions to make the official communication 
of the orders themselves, in their proper shape, to our govern- 
ment. 

Yet, although thus authenticated, and even although thus in 
some sort denied, the probability of the circumstances under 
which they were announced, and the sweeping tendency of their 
effects, formed to my understanding a powerful motive, and to- 
gether with the papers sent by the president, and his express re- 
commendation, a decisive one, for assenting to the embargo. As 
a precautionary measure, I believed it would rescue an immense, 
property from depredation, if the orders should prove authentic. 
If the alarm was groundless, it must very soon be disproved, and 
ihe embargo might be removed with the danger. 

The omission of all notice of these facts in the pressing en- 
quiries " why the embargo was laid?'' is the more surprising, be- 
cause they are of all the facts the most material, upon a fair and 
impartial, examination of the expediency of that act, when it 
passed— and because these orders, together with the subsequent 
"retaliating" decrees of France and Spain, have furnished the 
only reasons upon which I have acquiesced in its continuence tc 
this day. If duly weighed, they will save us the trouble of re- 
sorting to jealousies of secret corruption, and the imaginary ter- 
rors of Napoleon for the real cause of the embargo. These are 
fictions of foreign invention. The French emperor had not de- 
clared that he would have no neutrals — he had not required that 
our ports should be shut against British commerce ;— but the 
orders of council, if submitted to, would have degraded us to the 
condition of colonies. If resisted, would have fattened the wolves 
of plunder with our spoils. The embargo was the only shelter 
from the tempest— the last refuge of our violated peace. 



(9) 

I have indeed been myself of opinion, that the embargo must 
m its nature be a temporary expedient, and that preparations ma- 
nifesting a determination of resistance against these outrageous 
violations of our neutral rights, ought at least to have been huye 
a subject of serious consideration in congress. I have believed, 
and do still believe, that our internal resources are competent to 
the establishment and maintenance of a naval force public and 
private, if not fully adequate to the protection and defence of our 
commerce, at least sufficient to induce a retreat from those hos- 
tilities, and to deter from a renewal of them, by either of the 
v. aning parties ; and that a system to that effect might be form- 
ed, ultimately far more economical, and certainly more energe- 
tic, th^n a three years embargo. Very soon after the closure of 
our ports, I did submit to the consideration of the senate, a pro- 
position for the appointment of a committee to institute an en- 
quiry to this end. But my resolution met no encouragement. 
Attempts of a similar nature had been made in the house of re- 
presentatives* but have been equally discountenanced; and from 
these determinations, by decided majorities of both houses, I am 
not sufficiently confident in the superiority of my own wisdom to 
appeal by a topical application, to the congenial feelings of any 

one not even of my own native section of the union. 

The embargo, however, is a restriction always under our own 
control. It was a measure altogether of defence, and experiment, 
If it was injudiciously or over-hastiiy laid, it has been every day 
since its adoption open to a repeal ; if it should prove ineffectual 
for the purposes it was meant to secure, a single day will suffice 
to unbar the doors. Still believing it a measure justified by the 
circumstances of the time, I am ready to admit that those who 
thought otherwise may have had a wiser foresight of events, and 
a sounder judgment of the then existing state of things than the 
majority of the national legislature, and the president. It has 
been approved by several of the state legislatures, and among the 
rest by our own. Yet of all its effects we are still unable to judge 
with certainty. It must still abide the test of futurity. I shall 
add that there were other motives, which had their operation in 
contributing to the passage of the act, unnoticed by Mr. Picker- 
ing, and which having now ceased, will also be left unnoticed by 
me. The orders of council of the 1 1th Nov. still subsist in all 
their force ; and are now confirmed, with the addition oi taxation, 
by act of parliament. 

As they stand in front of the real causes for the embargo, so 
they are entitled to the same pre-eminence in enumerating the 
causes of hostility, which the British ministers are accumulating 
upon our forbearance. They strike at the root of our indejien* 
dence. _ They assume the principle that we shall have no com- 

her dominions, and as tributaries 
B 



( io) 

to her. The exclusive confinement of commerce to the mother 
country, is the great principle of the modern colonial system) 
and should we by a dereliction of our rights at this momentous 
stride of encroachment, surrender our commercial freedom 
without a struggle, Britain has but a single step more to take, and 
she brings us back to the stamfi act and the tea tax. 

Yet these orders thus fatal to the liberties for which the he- 
roes of our revolution toiled and bled thus studiously concealed 

until the moment when they burst upon our heads.. ...thus issued 
at the very instant when a mission of atonement was professedly 

sent in these orders we are to see nothing but a " retaliating 

order upon France'*.. ..in these orders, we must not find so much 

as a cause nay, not so much as a pretence, for complaint against 

Great Britain ! 

To my mind, sir, in comparison with those orders, the three 
causes to which Mr. Pickering explicitly limits our grounds for 
a rupture with England, might indeed be justly denominated 

pretences in comparison with them former aggressions sink 

into insignificance. To argue upon the subject of our disputes 
with Britain, or upon the embargo, and keep them out of sight, 
is like laying your finger over the unit before a series of noughts, 
and then arithmetically proving that they are all nothing. 

It is not however in a mere omission, nor yet in the history of 
the embargo, that the inaccuracies of the statement I am exa- 
mining have given me the most serious concern. It is in the 
view taken of the questions in controversy between us and Bri- 
tain. The wisdom of the embargo is a question of great, but tran- 
sient magnitude, and omission sacrifices no national right. Mr. 
Pickering's object was to dissuade the nation from a war with 
England, into which he suspected the administration was plung- 
ing us, under French compulsion. But the tendency of his pam- 
phlet is to reconcile the nation, or at least the commercial states, 
to the servitude of British protection, and war with all the rest 
of Europe. Hence England is represented as contending for the 
common liberties of mankind and our only safe guard against the 
ambition and injustice of France. Hence all our sensibilities are 
invoked in her favor, and all our antipathies against her antago- 
nist. Hence too all the subjects of difference between us and 
Britain are alleged to be on our part mere pretences, of which 
the right is unequivocally pronounced to be on her side. Proceed 
ing from a senator of the United States, specially charged as a 
member of the executive with the maintenance of the nation's 
rights against foreign powers, and at a moment extremely criti- 
cal of pending negociation upon all the points thus delineated, 
this formal abandonment of the. American cause, this summons 
of unconditional surrender to the pretensions of our antagonist^ 
is in my mind highly alarming. It becomes therefore a duty to 
which every other consideration must yield, to point out the er 



(11) 

rors of this representation. Before we strike the standard of th$ 
naliq/i let us at least examine the fiur/iort of the summons:. 

And first, with respect to the impressment of our seamen, 

We are told that "the taking of British seamen found on board 
our merchant vessels, by British ships of war, is agreeably to a 
rightj claimed and exercised for ages." It is obvious that this 
ekim and exercise of ages, could not apply to us, as an indepen- 
dent people. If the right was claimed and exercised while our 
vessels were navigating under the British flag, it could not au- 
thorise the same claim when their owners have become the citi- 
zens of a sovereign state. As a relic of colonial servitude, what- 
ever may be the claim of G. Britain, it surely can be no ground 
for contending that it is entitled to our submission. 

If it be meant that the right has been claimed and exercised 
for ages over the merchant vessels of other nations, I appre- 
hend it is a mistake. The case never occurred with sufficient 
frequency to constitute even a practice much less a right. If it 
had been' either, it would have been noticed by some of the Wri- 
ters on the laws of nations. The truth is, the question arose out 

of American independence from the severance of one nation 

into two. It was never made a question between any other na- 
tions. There is therefore no right of prescription. 

But, it seems, it has also been claimed and exercised, during the 
whole of the three administrations of our national government. 
And is it meant to be asserted that this claim and exercise con- 
stitute a right ? If it is, I appeal to the uniform, unceasing, and 

urgent remonstrances of the three administrations I appeal not 

only to the warm feelings, but cool justice of the American peo- 
ple nay, I appeal to the sound sense and honorable sentiment 

of the British nation itself, which, however it may have submit- 
ted at home to this practice, never would tolerate its sanction by 
law, against the assertion. If it is not, how can it be affirmed 
that it is on our part? a mere pretence ? 

But the first merchant of the United States in answer to Mr. 
Pickering's late enquiries, has informed him that since the affair 

of the Chesapeake there has been no cause of complaint that 

he could not find a single instance where they had taken one man 
out of a merchant vessel. Who it is that enjoys the dignity of 
first merchant of the United States we are not informed. But if 
he had applied to many merchants in Boston as respectable as any 
in the United States, they could have told him of a valuable ves- 
sel and cargo, totally lost upon the coast of England, late in Au- 
gust last, and solely in consequence of having had two of her 
men, native Americans, taken from her by impressment, two 
months after the affair of the Chesapeake. 

On the 15th of October, the king of England issued his pro- 
clamation, commanding his naval officers, to impress his subjects 
r rom neutral vessels. This proclamation is represented as merely 



( 12) 

-" requiring the return of his subjects, the seamen especially, 
from foreign countries," and then " it is an acknowieged princi- 
ple that every nation has a right to the service of its subjects in 
time of war." Is this, sir, a correct statement either of the pro- 
clamation, or of the question it involves in which our right is 
concerned ? The king of England's right to the service of his sub- 
jects in time of war is nothing to us. The question is, whether he 
has a right to seize them forcibly on board of our vessels while un- 
der contract of service to our citizens, within our jurisdiction upon 
the high seas ? And whether he has a right expressly to command 
his naval officers to stize them.... Is this an acknowieged princi- 
ple? Certainly not. Why then is this proclamation described as 
founded upon uncontested principle ? And why is the command, 
so justly offensive to us, and so mischievous as it might then have 
been made in execution, altogether omitted? 

But it is not the taking of British subjects from our vessels, it 
is the taking under colour of that pretence, our own, native Ame- 
rican citizens, which constitutes the most galling aggravation of 
this merciless practice. Yet even this, we are told, is but a pre- 
tence for three reasons: 

1 . Because the number of citizens thus taken is small. 

2. Because it arises only from the impossibility of distinguishing 

Englishmen from Americans. 

3. Because, such impressed American citizens are delivered up, 

on duly authenticated proof. 

1. Small and great in point of numbers, are relative terms. To 
suppose that the native Americans form a small proportion of the 

whole number impressed is a mistake the reverse is the fact. 

Examine the official returns from the department of state. They 
eive the names of between four and five thousand men impressed 
since the commencement of the present war. Of which num- 
ber, not one fifth part were British subjects. The number of na- 
turalized Americans could not have amounted to one-tenth. I 
hazard little in saying, that more than three-fourths were native 
Americans. If it be said that some of these men^ though appear- 
ing on the face of the returns, American citizens, were really 
British subjects, and had fraudulently procured -their protections, 
I. reply that this number must be far exceeded by the cases of ci- 
tizens impressed, which never reacrrthe department of state. The 
American consul at London estimates the number of impress- 
ments during the war, at nearly three times the amount of the 
names returned. If the nature of the offence be considered in its 
true colours, to a people having a just sense of personal liberty 
and security, it is in every single instance, of a malignity not in 
ferior to that of murder. The very same act, when committed 
by the recruiting officer of one nation within the territories of 
another, is by the universal law and usage of nations punished 



( 13) 

with dcalh. Suppose the crime had, in every instance, as by iti 

consequences it has been in many, deliberate minder would it 

answer or silence the voice of our complaints to be told, that the 
■rr was small ? 

2. The impossibility of distinguishing English from American 
seamen is not the only, nor even the most frequent occasion of 
impressment. Look again into the returns from the department 
of state vou will see that the officers take our men without pre- 
tending to" enquire where they were born; sometimes merely to 
shew their animosity or their contempt for our country; some- 
times from the wantonness of power. _ When they manifest the 
most tender regard for the neutral rights of America, they la- 
ment that they want the men. They regret the necessity, but 
they must have their complement. When we complain of these 
enormities, we are answered that the acts of such officers were 
unauthorized ; that the commanders of men of war, are an unruly 
set 6f men, for wmose violence their own government cannot al- 
ways be answerable ; that enquiry shall be made a court martial 

is sometimes mentioned. ...and the issue of Whitby's court martial 
has taught us what relief is to be expected from that. There are 
even examples I am told, when such officers have been put upon 

the yellow list. But this is a rare exception the ordinary issue, 

when the act is disavowed, is the promotion of the actor. 

3. The impressed native American citizens, however, upon 
duly authenticated /irocf, are delivered up. Indeed! how unrea- 
sonable then were complaint 1 how effectual a remedy then for 
the v.Tong 1 An American vessel bound, bound to an European 
port, I. ? c- two, three, or four native Americans impressed by a 
British man of w T ar, bound to the East or West Indies. When 
the American captain arrives at his port of destination, he makes 
his protest, and sends it to the nearest American minister or con- 
sul. When he returns home, he transmits the duplicate of his 
protest to the secretary of state. In process of time, the names of 
the impressed men, and of the ship into which they have been im- 
pressed, are received by the agent m London he makes his de- 
mand that the men might be delivered up the lords of the admi- 
ralty, after a reasonable time for enquiry and advertisement, re- 
turn for answer, that the ship is on a foreign station, and their lord- 
ships can, therefore, take no further steps in the matter or, that 

v he ship has been taken, and that the men have been received in 
exchange for French prisoners or that the men had no protec- 
tions (the impressing officers often having taken them from the 

men) or, that the men \:ere probably British subjects or, that 

they have entered, and taken the bounty ; (to which the officers 

know how to reduce them) or, that they have been married, or 

settled in England. In all these cases, without further ceremony, 
their discharge is refused. Sometimes, their lordships, in a vein 
of humor, inform the agent, that the man has been discharged a? 



( 14 ) 

'unserviceable. Sometimes, in a sterner tofle, they say he was an 
impostor. Or perhaps, by way of consolasion to his relatives and 
friends, they report that he has fallen in battle, against nations in 
amity with his country. Sometimes they coolly return, that there 
is no such man on board the ship; and what has become of him, 
the agonies of a wife and children in his native land may be left 
to conjecture. When all these and many other such apologies for 

refusal fail, the native American is discharged and when, by 

the charitable aid of his government, he has found his way home, 
he comes to be informed, that all is as it should be. ....that the 

number of his fellow-sufferers is small that it was impossible 

to distinguish him from an Englishman. ... t and that he was deli- 
vered up, on duly authenticated proof . 

Enough of this disgusting subject.. ...I cannot stop to calculate 
how many of these wretched victims are natives of Massachu- 
setts, and how many natives of Virginia I cannot stop to solve 

that knotty question of national jurisprudence, whether some of 
them might not possibly be slaves, and therefore not citizens of 
the United States.., .1 cannot stay to account for the wonder, why, 
poor, and ignorant, and friendless, as most of them are, the voice 
of their complaints is so seldom heard in the navigating states. 
I admit that we have endured this cruel indignity, through all the 
administrations of the general government. I acknowledge that 
Britain claims the right of seizing her subjects in our merchant 
vessels, and that even if we could acknowledge it, the line of dis- 
crimination w^ould be difficult to draw. We are not in a con- 
dition to maintain right, by war, and as the British government 
have been more than once on the point of giving it up of their 
own accord, I would still hope for the day when returning justice 
shall induce them to abandon it, without compulsion. — Her sub- 
jects we do not want. The degree of protection which we are 
bound to extend to them, cannot equal the claim of our own ci- 
tizens. I would subscribe to any compromise of this contest, 
consistent with the rights of sovereignty, the duties of humanity, 
and the principles cf reciprocity : but to the right of forcing 
even her own subjects out of our merchant vessels on the high 
seas, I never can assent. 

The second point upon which Mr. Pickering defends the pre- 
tensions of Great Britain, is her denial to neutral nations of the 
right of prosecution with her enemies and their colonies, any 
commerce from which they are excluded in time of peace. His 
statement of this case adopts the British doctrine, as sound. The 
right, as on the question of impressment, so on this, is surren- 
der at discretion and it is equally defective in point of fact. 

In the first place, the claim of Great Britain, is not to "a 
fight of imposing on this neutral commerce some limits and re- 
straints:' but of 'interdicting it. altogether, at her pleasure, ol in- 
terdicting it without a moment's notice to neutrals, after solemn 



decisions of her courts of admiralty, and formal acknowledge- 
ments of her ministers, that it is a lawful trade and, on such a 

sudden, unnotified interdiction, of pouncing upon all neutral 
commerce navigating upon the faith of her decisions and ac- 
knowledgments, and of gorging with confiscation the greediness 

of her cruizers this is the right claimed by Britain this is 

the power she has exercised what Mr. Pickering calls "limits 

and restraints," she calls relaxations of her right. 

It is but little more than two years, since this question was 
agitated both in England and America, with as much zeal, ener- 
gy and ability, as ever was displayed upon any question of na- 
tional law. The British side was supported by sir Wiliiam Scott, 
Mr. Ward, and the author of War in Disguise. But even in 
Britain their doctrine was refuted to demonstration by the Edin- 
burg reviewers. In America, the rights of our country were 
maintained by numerous writers profoundly skilled in the science 
of national and maritime law. The answer to War in Disguise was 
ascribed to a gentleman whose talents are universally acknowledg- 
ed, and who by his official situations had been required thorough- 
ly to investigate every question of conflict between neutral and 
belligerent rights which has occurred in the history of modern 
war. Mr. Gore and Mr. Pinkney, our two commissioners at 
London, under Mr. Jay's treaty, the former, in a train of cool 
conclusive argument addressed to Mr. Madison, the latter in a 
memorial of splendid eloquence from the merchants at Balti- 
more supported the same cause ; memorials, drawn by lawyers 
of distinguished eminence, by merchants of the highest char- 
acter, and by statesmen of long experience in our national coun- 
cils, came from Salem, from Boston, from New Haven, from 
New York, and from Philadelphia, together with remonstrances to 
the same effect from Newburyport, Newport, Norfolk, and Charles- 
ton. This accumulated mass of legal learning, of commercial 
information, and of national sentiment, from almost every inha- 
bited spot upon our shores, and from one extremity of the union 
to the other, confirmed by the unanswered and unanswerable me- 
morial of Mr. Monroe to the British minister, and by the elabo- 
rate research and irresistible reasoning of the examination of the 
British doctrine, was also made a subject of full, and deliberate 
discussion in the senate of the United States. A committee of 
seven members of that body, after three weeks of arduous in- 
vestigation, reported three resolutions, the first of which was in 
these words, " resolved, that the capture and condemnation, under 
the orders of the British government, and adjudications of their 
courts of admiralty of American vessels and their cargoes, on 
the pretext of their being employed in a trade with the enemies 
of Great Britain, prohibited in time of peace, is an unprovoked 
aggression^ upon the property of the citizens of these United 
States, a violation of their neutral rights, and ar. enctodc 
vjion their national indef lenders- £ 



.( 16) 

On the 13th of February, 1806, the question upon the adoption 
of this resolution, was taken in the senate. The yeas and nays 
were required; but not a solitary nay was heard in answer. It 

was adoptedby the unanimous voice of all the senators present 

They were twenty -eight in number, and among them stands re- 
corded the name of Mr. Pickering. 

Let us remember that this was a question most peculiarly 
and immediately of commercial, and not agricultural interest; that 
it arose from a call, loud, energetic, and unanimous, from allthe 
merchants of the United States upon congress, for the national 
interposition; that many of the memorials invoked all the energy 
of the legislature, and pledged the lives and properties of the 
memorialists in support of any measures which congress might 
deem necessary to vindicate those rights. Negociation was par- 
ticularly recommended from Boston, and elsewhere negocia- 
tion was adopted negociation has failed and now Mr. Picker- 
ing tells us that Great Britain has claimed and maintained her 

right J He argues that her claim is just and is not .sparing of 

censure upon those who still consider it as a serious cause of 
complaint. 

But there was one point of view in which the British doctrine 
on this question was then only considered incidentally in the 
United States because it was not deemed material for the dis- 
cussion of our rights. We examined it chiefly as affecting the 
principles as between a belligerent and a neutral power. But in 
fact it was an infringement of the rights of war, as well as the 
rights of peace. It was an unjustifiable enlargement of the sphere 
of hostile operations. The enemies of Great Britain had, by the 
universal law of nations, a right to the benefits of neutral com- 
merce within their dominions (subject to the exceptions of actual 
blockade and contraband) as well as neutral nations have a right 
to trade with them. The exclusion from that commerce by this 
new principle of warfare with Britain, in defiance of all imme- 
morial national usages, undertook by her single authority to estab- 
lish, but too naturally led her enemies to resort to new and ex- 
traordinary principles, by which in their turn they might retaliate 
this injury upon her. The pretence upon which Britain in the 
first instance had attempted to colour her injustice, was a miser- 

able fiction It was an argument against fact. Her reasoning was, 

that a neutral vessel by mere admission in time of war, into ports 
from which it should have been excluded in time of peace, be- 
came thereby deprived of its national character, and ipso facto 
was transformed into enemy's property. 

Such was the basis upon which arose the far famed rule of 

war of 1756 such was the foundation upon which Britain 

claimed and maintained this supposed right of adding that new in- 
strument of desolation to the horrors of war ....it was distressing 
to her enemy. ....yes! hy& she adopted the practice of dealing 



(17) 

with them in poison... ..Had Mr. Fox accepted the service of the 
man who offered to rid him of the French emperor by assassina- 
tion, and had the attempt succeeded, it would have been less dis- 
tressing to France than this rule of the war of 1756 ; and not more 
unjustifiable. Mr. Fox had too fair a mind for either, but his com- 
prehensive and liberal spirit was discarded, with the cabinet 
which he had formed. 

It has been the struggle of reason and humanity, and above 
all of Christianity, for two thousand years, to mitigate the rigors 
of that scourge of humanity, war. It is now the struggle of Bri- 
tain to aggravate them. Her rule of the war of 1756, in itself 
and in its effects, was one of the deadliest poisons, in which it 
was possible for her to tinge the weapons of her hostility. 

In itself and in its effects, I say for the French decrees of 

Berlin and of Milan, the Spanish and Dutch decrees of the same 
or the like tenor, and her own orders of January and November 

these alternations of licensed pillage, this eager competition 

between her and her enemies for the honor of giving the last 
stroke to the vitals of maritime neutrality, all are justly attributa- 
ble to their assumption and exercise of this single principle. The 
rule of the war of 1756 was the root from which all the rest are but 
suckers, still at every shoot growing ranker in luxuriance. 

In the last decrees of France and Spain, her own ingenious fic- 
tion is adopted ; and under them, every neutral vessel that submits 
to English search, has been carried into an English port, or paid 
tax to the English government, is declared denationalized; that is, 
to have lost her national character, and to have become English 
property. This is cruet in execution ; absurd in argument. To 
refute it were folly, for to the understanding of a child it refutes 
itself. But it is the reasoning of British jurists. It is the simple 
application to the circumstances and powers of France, of the 
rule of the war of 1756. 

I am not the apologist of France and Spain ; I have no national 
partialities; no national attachments but to my own country. I 
shall neverundertake to justify or palliate the insults or injuries 
of any foreign power to that country which is dearer to me than 
life. If the voice of reason and justice could be heard by France 
and Spain, they would say.. ...you have done wrong to make the 
injustice of your enemy towards neutrals the measure of your 
own. If she chastises with whips, do not you chastise with scor- 
pions. Whether France would listen to this language, I know not. 
The most enormous infractions of our rights, hitherto commit- 
ted by her, have been more in menace than in accomplishment. 
The alarm has been justly great, the anticipation threatening; 
but the amount of actual injury small. But to Britain, what can 
we say ? If we attempt to raise our voices, her minister has de- 
clared to Mr. Pinkney that she will not hear. The only reason 
she assigns for her recent orders of council is, that France pro- 

C 



(18) 

ceeds on the same principles. It is only by the light of blazing 
temples, and amid the groans of women and children perishing 
in the ruins of the sanctuaries of domestic habitation at Copen- 
hagen, that we can expect our remonstrances against this source 
of proceeding will be heard. 

Let us come to the third and last of the causes of complaint* 

which are represented as so frivolous and so unfounded " the 

unfortunate affair of the Chesapeake." The orders of admiral 
Berkley, under which this outrage was committed, have been 
disavowed by his government. General professions of a willing- 
ness to make reparation for it, have been lavished in profusion ; 
and we are now instructed to take these professions for endeavors; 
to believe them sincere, because his Britannic majesty sent us a 
special envoy; and to cast the odium upon our own government. 

I have already told you, that I am not one of those who deem 
suspicion and distrust, in the highest order of political virtues. 
Baseless suspicion is, in my estimation, a vice, as pernicious in 
the management of public affairs, as it is fatal to the happiness 
of a domestic life. When, therefore, the British ministers have 
declared their disposition to make ample reparation for an injury 
of a most atrocious character, committed by an officer of high 
rank, and, as they say, utterly without authority, I should most 
readily believe them, were their professions not positively contra- 
dicted by facts of more powerful eloquence than words. 

Have such facts occurred? I. will not again allude to the cir- 
cumstances of Mr. Rose's departure upon his mission at such a 
precise point of time, that his commission and the orders of 
council of 1 1th November, might have boen signed with the same 
pen full of ink. The subjects were not immediately connected 
with each other, and his majesty did not choose to associate dis- 
tinct topics of negociation. The attack upon the Chesapeake was 
disavowed ; and ample reparation was withheld, only because with 
the demand for satisfaction upon that injury, the American go- 
vernment had coupled a demand for the cessation of others; alike 
in kind, but of minor aggravation. But had reparation really been 
intended, would it not have been offered, not in vague and gene- 
ral terms, but in precise and specific proposals? Were any such 
made? None. But it is said, Mr. Monroe was restricted from ne- 
gociating upon that subject apart ; and therefore Mr. Rose was to 
be sent to Washington charged with this single object ; and with- 
out authority to treat upon or even to discuss any other. Mr. Rose 

arrives The American government readily determine to treat 

upon the Chesapeake ajfazr, separately from all others ; but be- 
fore Mr. Rose sets his foot on shore, in pursuance of a pretension 
made before by Mr. Canning, he connects with the negociation, 
a subject far more distinct from the butchery of the Chesapeake, 
than the general impressment of our seamen, I mean the 'procla- 
mation, interdicting to British ships of war, the entran 
harbours. 



Cl9) 

The, great obstacle which has always interfered with the ad; 
■justment of our differences with Britain, has been that she would, 
riot acquiesce in the only principle upon which fair ncgociation 
between independent nations can be conducted, the principle of 
reciprocity, that she refuses the application to us of the claim 
which she asserts for herself. The forcible taking of men from 
an American vessel, was an essential part of the outrage upon 
the Chesapeake. It was the ostensible purpose for which that 
act of war unproclaimed, was committed. The president's pro- 
clamation was a subsequent act, and was avowedly founded upon ' 
many similar aggressions, of which that was only the most ag- 
gravated. 

If then Britain could, with any colour of reason, claim that the 
general question of impressment should be laid out of the case 
altogether, she ought upon the principle of reciprocity, to have 
laid equally out of the case, the proclamation, a measure so ea- 
sily separable from it, and in its nature merely defensive. When 
therefore she made the repeal of the proclamation an indispen- 
sable preliminary to all discussions upon the nature and extent: 
of that reparation which she had offered, she refused to treat 
with us upon the footing of an independent power. She insisted 
upon an act of self-degradation on our part, before she would even 
tell us, what redress she would condescend to grant for a great 
and acknowleged wrong. This was a condition which she could 
not but know to be inadmissible, and is of itself proof nearly con- 
clusive that her cabinet never intended to make, for that wrong, 
any reparation at alL 

But this is nut all.. ...it cannot be forgotten, that when that atro- 
cious deed was committed, amidst the general burst of indigna- 
tion which resounded from every part of the union, there were 
among us a small number of persons, who upon the opinion that 
Berkley's orders were authorised by his government, undertook 
to justify them in their fullest extent. ...these ideas, probably first 
propagated by British official characters, in this country, were 
persisted in until the disavowal of the British government took 
away the necessity for persevering in them, and gave notice where 
the next position was to be taken. This patriotic reasoning, how- 
ever, had been so satisfactory at Halifax, that complimentary let- 
ters were received from admiral Berkley himself, highly approv- 
ing the spirit in which they were inculcated, and remarking how 
easily peace, between the United States and Britain might be pre- 
served, if that measure of our national rights could be made the 
prevailing standard of the country. 

When the news arrived in England, although the general sen- 
timent of the nation was not prepared for the formal avowal and 
justification of this unparalleled aggression, yet there were not 
wanting persons there, ready to claim and maintain the right of 
searching national ships for deserters. It was said at the time,, 



(20) 

but for this we must of course rest upon the credit of inofficial 
authority, to have been made a serious question in the cabinet 
council; nor was its determination there ascribed to the elo- 
quence of the gentleman who became the official organ of its 

communication add to this, a circumstance, which without 

claiming the irrefragable credence of diplomatic note, has yet 
its weight upon, the common sense of mankind ; that in all the 
daily newspapers known to be in the ministerial interest, Berkley 
was justified and applauded in every variety of form that publica- 
tion could assume, excepting only that of official proclamation. 
The only part of his orders there disapproved was the reciprocal 
offer which he made of submitting his own ship to be searched in 
return.... that was very unequivocally disclaimed. ...the ruffian right 
of superior force, was the solid base upon which the claim was as- 
serted, and so familiar was this argument grown to the casuists 
of British national jurisprudence, that the right of a British man 
of war to search an American frigate, was to them a self-evitient 
proof against the right of the American frigate to search the Bri- 
tish man of war. The same tone has been constantly kept up, un- 
til our accounts of latest date ; and have been recently further in- 
vigorated by a very explicit call for war with the United States, 
which they contend could be of no possible injury to Britain, and 
which they urge upon the ministiy as affording them an excel- 
lent opportunity to accomplish a dismemberment of this union. 
These sentiments have even been avowed in parliament, where 
the nobleman who moved the address of the house of lords in an- 
swer to the king's speech, declared that the right of searching na- 
tional ships, ought to be maintained against the Americans, and 
disclaimed only with respect to European sovereigns. 

In the mean time, admiral Berkley, by a court martial of his 
own subordinate officers, hung one of the men taken from the Che- 
sapeake, and called his name Jenkin Ratford. There was, accord- 
ing to the answer so frequently given by the lords of the admiralty, 
upon applications for the discharge of impressed Americans, no 
such mem on board the ship. The man thus executed had been taken 
from the Chesapeake by the name of Wilson. It is said that on 
his trial he was identified by one or two witnesses who knew him, 
and that before he was ^turned off he confessed his name was 

Ratford, and was born in England but it has also been said, that 

Ratford is now living in Pennsylvania and after the character 

which the disavowal of admiral Berkley's own government has 
given to his conduct, what confidence can be claimed or due to 
the proceedings of a court martial of his associates, held to sanc- 
tion his proceedings. The three other men had not even been- 
demanded in his orders; they were taken by the sole authority of 
the British searching lieutenant, after the surrender of the Chesa- 
peake. There was not the shadow of a pretence before the court 
martial that they were British subjects, or born in any of the 



(21) 

British dominions. Yet, by this court martial, they were sentenced 
to suffer death. They were reprieved from execution, only upon 
condition of renouncing their rights as Americans by voluntary 

service in the king's ships they have never been restored, lo 

complete the catastrophe with which this bloody tragedy was 
concluded, admiral Berkley himself, in sanctioning the doom of 

these men.... .thus obtained. ...thus tried and thus sentenced 

read them a grave moral lecture on the enormity of their crime, 
in its tendency to provoke a war between the United States and 
Great Britain. 

Yet amidst all this parade of disavowal by his government 

amidst all these professions of readiness to make Reparation, not 
a single mark of the slightest disapprobation, appears ever to 
have been manifested to that officer. His instructions were ex- 
ecuted upon the t hesapeake in June Rumors of his recall have 

been circulated here... .But on leaving the station at Halifax in 
December, he received a complimentary address from the colo- 
nial assembly, and assured them in answer that he had no official 
information of his recall. From thence he went to the West 
Indies; and on leaving Bermuda for England, in February, was 
addressed again by that colonial government, in terms of high 
panegyric upon his energy, with manifest allusions to his achieve- 
ment upon the Chesapeake. 

Under all these circumstances, without applying any of the 
maxims of a suspicious policy to the British professions, I may 
still be permitted to believe that their ministry never seriously 
intended to make us honorable reparation, or indeed any repara- 
tion at all for that unfortunate affair." 

It is impossible for any man to form an accurate ieda of the 
British policy towards the United States, without taking into 
consideration the state of parties in that government; and the 
views, characters and opinions of the individuals at their helm 

of state a liberal and a hostile policy towards America, are 

among the strongest marks of distinction between the political 
systems of the rival statesmen of that kingdom... ..the liberal 
party are reconciled to our independence : and though extrmeh 
tenacious of every right of their own country, are systematically 
disposed to preserve fieace with the United States. Their oppo- 
nents harbor sentiments of a very different description their 

system is coercion their object the recovery of their lost do 

minion in North America this party now stands high in power..,. 

although admiral Berkley may never have received written or- 
ders from them for his enterprize upon the Chesapeake, yet in 
given his instructions to the squadron at Norfolk, he knew full 
*well under what administration he was acting. Every measure 
of that administration towards us since that time has been di- 
rected to the same purpose ., ,to break dowfj the spirit of our na- 



(22 ) 

uonal independence. Their purpose, as far as it can be collected 
from their acts, is to force us into war \yth them or with their 
enemies; to leave us only the bitter alternative of their vengeance 
or their protection. 

Both these parties are no doubt willing that we should join 

them in the war of their nation against France and her allies 

The late administration would have drawn us into it by treaty, 
the present are attempting it by compulsion. The former would 
have admitted us as allies, the latter will have us no otherwise 
than as colonists. On the late debates in parliament, the lord 
chancellor freely avowed that the orders of council of 1 1th No- 
vember, were intended to make America at last sensible of the 
policy of joining England against France. 

This too, sir, is the substantial argument of Mr. Pickering's 
letter. The suspicions of a design in our own administration to 
plunge us into a war with Britain, I never have shared. Our ad- 
ministration have every interest and every motive that can in- 
fluence the conduct of man to deter them from any such purpose. 
Nor have I seen any thing in their measures bearing the slight- 
est indication of it. But between a design of war with England 
and a surrender of our national freedom for the sake of war with 
the rest Europe, there is material difference. This is the policy 
now in substance recommended to us, and for which the interpo- 
sition of the confimercial states is called. For this, not only all 
our outrages of Britain to be forgotten, but the very assertion of 

our rights is to be branded with odium Impressment Neutral 

trade British taxation Every thing that can distinguish a state 

of national freedom from a state of national vassalage, is to be 
surrendered at discretion. In the face of every fact we are told 
to believe every profession. ....In the midst of every indignity, we 
are pointed to British protection as our only shield against the 
universal conqueror Every phantom of jealously and fear is in- 
Yoked the image of France, with a scourge in her hand, is im- 
pressed into the service, to lash us into the refuge of obedience 

to Britain insinuations are even made that if Britain " with her 

thousand ships of war, has not destroyed our commerce, it has 
been owing to her indulgence, and we are almost threatened in 
her name with the " destruction of our fairest cities." 

Not one act of hostility to Britain has Seen committed by us, 

she has not a pretence of that kind to allege but if she will 

wage war upon us, are we to do nothing in our own defence ? If 
she issues orders of universal plunder upon our commerce, are 
we not to withhold it from her grasp? is American pillage one 
of those rights which she has claimed and exercised until we 
are forecosed from any attempt to obstruct its collection ? For 
what purpose are we required to make this sacrifice of every 
Jhin^ that can eive valour to the name of freemen, this abandon^ 



(23 ) 

*nent of the very right of self preservation ? Is it to avoid a war? 
ahs ' sir, ft does not offer even this plausible plea of pusillanimi- 
ty 'for, as submission would make us to all substantial purposes 
British colonies, her enemies would unquestionably treat us as 
such, and after degrading ourselves into voluntary servitude to 
escape a war with her, we should incur inevitable war with ah 
her enemies, and be doomed to share the destinies of her con- 
flict with a world in arms. 4 

Between this unqualified submission and offensive resistance 
aeainst the war upon maritime neutrality, waged by the concur- 
ring decrees of all the great belligerent powers, the embargo was 
adopted, and has been hitherto continued. So far was it from 
being dictated by France, that it was calculated to withdraw, and 
has withdrawn from within her reach all the means of compulsion 
Which her subsequent decrees would have put in her possession. 
It has added to the motives both of France and England for pre* 
serving peace with us, and has diminished their inducements to 

war. , 

It has lessened their capacities of inflicting injury upon us, and 
given us some preparation for resistance to them — it has taken 
from their violence the love of interest—it has dashed the phil- 
ter of pillage from the lips of rapine. That it is distressing to 
ourselves— that it calls for the fortitude of a people, determined 
to maintain their rights, is not to be denied. But the only alter- 
native was between that and war. Whether it will yet save us 
from that calamity, cannot be determined, but if not, it will pre- 
pare us for the further struggle to which we may be called. Its 
double- tendency of 'promoting peace and preparing for war, in 
its operation upon both belligerent rivals, is the great advantage 
which more than outweigh all its evils. 

If any statesman can point out another alternative, I am ready 
to hear him, and for any practicable expedient to lend him every 
possible assistance. But let not that expedient be, submission to 
trade under British licences, and British taxation. We are told 
that even under these restrictions we may yet trade to the British 
dominions, to Africa and China, and with the colonies of France, 
Spain, and Holland. I ask not how much of this trade would De- 
left, when our intercourse with the whole continent of Europe be- 
ing cut off would ieave us no means of purchase, and no market 
for sale? I ask not, what trade we could enjoy with the colonies 
of nations with which we should be at war ? % ask not how long 
Britain would leave open to us avenues of trade, which even in. 
these very orders of council, she boasts of leaving open as a spe- 
cial indulgence? If we yield the principle, we abandon all pretence 
to national sovereignty To yearn for the fragments of trade which 
might be left, would be to pine for the cr\imbs of commercial 
servitude. The boon, which we should humiliate ourselves to ac- 
cept from British bounty, would soon be wilthdrawii. Suhmassw ~ 



(24) 

never yet sat boundaries to encroachment. From pleading for 
half the empire, we should sink into supplicants for life — we should 
supplicate in vain. If we must fall, let us fall freemen— -If we 
must perish, let it be in defence of our rights. 

To conclude, sir, I am not sensible of any necessity for the ex- 
traordinary interference of the commercial states, to controul the 
general councils of the nation. If any interference could, at this 
critical extremity of our affairs have a kindly effect upon our 
common welfare, it would be interference to promote union, and 
not a division to urge mutual confidence, and not universal dis- 
trust to strengthen the arm, and not to relax the sinews of the 

nation. Our suffering and our dangers, though differing perhaps 
in degree, are universal in extent. As their causes are justly 
chargeable, so. their removal is dependant not upon ourselves, 
but upon others. But while the spirit of independence shall con- 
tinue to beat in unison with the pulses of the nation, no danger 
will be truly formidable. Our duties are, to prepare with con- 
certed energy, for those whkh threaten us, to meet them without 
dismay, and to rely for their issue upon Heaven. 

I am, with great respect and attachment, 
Dear sir, your friend and humble servant, 

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 
Hon. Harrison Gray Otis 



Deacfdified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: May 2010 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN COLLECTIONS PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




011 838 500 7 






